Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds two traits those hints do not convey: the change is staged into a *draft* revision (not applied live), and consuming a suggestion auto-clears other pending suggestions made moot. That side effect is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and then the side effect. No wasted words, though the placement of the auto-clear behavior at the end slightly buries a consequential detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description nails the mechanism and side effect but leaves two of four parameters unexplained and offers no routing to sibling tools. It is adequate for the happy path but incomplete for correct invocation in edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% — id and selected_automation_revision_id are documented, but revision_id and create_new_draft are undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the gap; an agent cannot tell what revision_id or create_new_draft do.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Apply a suggestion') and explains the mechanism (stage its change into the Agent's draft revision). It distinguishes itself implicitly from rejectAgentSuggestion and getAgentSuggestion, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (rejectAgentSuggestion, getAgentSuggestion, listAgentSuggestions). The agent must infer the invocation context from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.